The BBC: NATO’s Media Partner in Crime

I DON’T ACCEPT ALL RT SAY- BUT- THATS THE NEWS STATION THAT I USE…THATS’ THE STATE OF BRITISH TV AND DEMOCRACY.

IMPARTIAL – IS WHY WE ARE FORCED TO PAY THEIR TAX- SUPPOSEDLY TO KEEP IT FREE FROM GOV’T INTERFERENCE…..WHEN WE KNOW IT’S THE GOVERNMENTS MOUTHPIECE!

The BBC: NATO’s Media Partner in Crime

by William Bowles

Well they’ve finally silenced Muammar Gaddafi, the man the BBC calls “an oddball until the end”. The manner of his capture and death seems not to bother the BBC but then who cares about ‘oddballs’?

The video, with commentary by the BBC’s chief foreign correspondent propagandist for NATO John Simpson,

“looks back at the life of a man who “remained a one-off, an oddball right until the end”. — BBC News, 20 October 2011

Attacked by NATO jets, then tortured and shot in cold blood in front of jubilant ‘rebels’, all Simpson has to offer is the perpetuation of racist Western myths about the Arabs, about the ‘other’. Disgusting stuff but totally in tune with BBC’s role as NATO’s media partner.

Other commentators however, had a somewhat different take on events, for example:

“The faces of the leaders of �world democracies� are so happy, as if they remembered how they hanged stray cats in basements in their childhoods,� Russian envoy to NATO and the leader of the Congress of Russian Communities, Dmitry Rogozin, described how the West treated the cold-blooded murder of Moammur Gaddafi.” — ‘Envoy slams ‘sadistic’ triumphalism’, RT, 22 October 2011

Hence the BBC’s focus on Gaddafi the ‘oddball’ and the ‘last of the buffoon dictators’, anything to dehumanize the man, all the better to justify his murder.

Meanwhile, back in TV-land the BBC’s ‘coverage’ of Gaddafi’s death veered wildly, first in one direction and then in another as it attempted to adjust its wobbly spin on things. Strikingly, not a single story questions the nature of his capture and subsequent murder, and the role NATO played in Gaddafi’s murder is hinted at in only two pieces on the 20 October (see below).

(Earliest to latest)

20 October 2011
Fallen hero of Libya’s final battle (obviously not about Gaddafi but about the ‘heroic’ rebels focusing on a Brit who had joined the ‘rebels’, got shot and died)

VIDEO: Libyan forces ‘capture Gaddafi’ (12:37pm replete with talk that most were glad that “the hated dictator” had been caught and according to the text, “Deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has been captured and wounded in both legs, the National Transitional Council has said” though it’s not stated in the video).

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi ‘killed’ (22:01) This is the most disingenuous of the BBC’s propaganda blitz on behalf of NATO replete with the allegation that Gaddafi had a “golden gun” when he was captured, an allegation that disappeared almost immediately just like the ‘African mercenaries’ and ‘bombing of civilians’ disinfo that acted as the justification for unleashing the Dogs of War on defenceless Libya.

This is one of only two references to a NATO attack on Gaddafi’s convoy and it’s pretty much a NATO press release rehashed:

“Nato, which has been running a bombing campaign in Libya for months, said it had carried out an air strike earlier on Thursday.

“French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said French jets had fired warning shots to halt a convoy carrying Col Gaddafi as it tried to flee Sirte.

“He said Libyan fighters had then descended and taken the colonel.”

It then quotes Mr Jibril (ex)leader of the NTC who alleged that,

“When the car [with Gaddafi onboard and already wounded] was moving it was caught in crossfire between the revolutionaries and Gaddafi forces in which he was hit by a bullet in the head,” said Mr Jibril, quoting from the report.

Not content with presenting this allegation as news, the piece presents us with some of the other allegations doing the rounds, though the piece opened with the ‘crossfire’ version of Gaddafi’s murder, obviously the preferred one coming as it did from the NTC itself.

“Acting Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril announced the death, and later said the colonel had been killed in a crossfire between Gaddafi loyalists and fighters from the transitional authorities.”

But just to be on the safe side, the BBC gives us some alternate endings to choose from later in the piece:

“Earlier, some NTC fighters gave a different account of the colonel’s death, saying he had been shot when he tried to escape.

“One NTC fighter told the BBC that he found Col Gaddafi hiding in a hole, and the former leader had begged him not to shoot.

“The fighter showed reporters a golden pistol he said he had taken from Col Gaddafi.

“Arabic TV channels showed images of troops surrounding two large drainage pipes where the reporters said Col Gaddafi was found.

None of which were true but the last fabrication about Gaddafi being found in a drain with its echoes of the image of Saddam Hussein down a hole made the headlines first, such is the power of the BBC to shape our take on events. The BBC even ran the footage as ‘news’.

Later on the same day, another BBC correspondent propagandist for NATO, Jeremy Bowen allegedly explains in ‘How Gaddafi’s power collapsed’ that the rebels, “helped” by NATO bombing overthrew Gaddafi.

Finally at 11pm, almost eleven hours after its first report, the BBC ran this story on its main news titled ‘Gaddafi’s demise: End of a dictator’ which opens,”[Gaddafi] was found cowering in a storm drain after his convoy was attacked by NATO jets” though the voiceover tells us that he was found in a ditch and once more repeats the fabrication of (ex)-Acting Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril that “the colonel had been killed in a crossfire between Gaddafi loyalists and fighters from the transitional authorities.”

Amazingly, the fact that the cellphone video shows Gaddafi, covered in blood and alive in the back of a pickup truck being kicked around and struggling, seems not to bother the BBC, allegedly anal about attention to detail. But who cares, what dramatic footage even if it’s only 2 megapixels-worth?

Three days later (23/10/11) the BBC ran a story titled, ‘Does new video provide clues as to who killed Gaddafi?’. In it we are shown a Libyan ‘rebel’ surrounded by his mates who announce that this is the man who shot Gaddafi through the head, waving the pistol around. But the BBC, now in a bind over its punting of the “crossfire” story from day one leaves the last word to (ex) Acting Prime Minister Jibril who states once again that Gaddafi was “killed in crossfire”.

Thus the much-vaunted BBC, famed for its ‘impartiality’ is now quit happy to run barely legible footage shot on a cellphone, throw in a quote from the (ex) acting-prime minister and call it the truth.

William Bowles is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by William Bowles

MIND- THE BBC HAS NEVER BEEN IMPARTIAL- JUST WATCH THEIR WORLD AT WAR……………………ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH IS BROADCAST!

THANK GOD FOR AUTHORS THAT WEREN’T ZIONISED BY FEAR!

matrix13thfloor on 3 Jul 2010

JFK warns America (and the rest of the West) in regards to Jewish Zionist Bolshevism. He recognizes that these secret societies are bringing down the media, politics, commerce & everything else. It is no longer in Russia only but here in our own house. JFK warns us, then he is assassinate and the blame put on one Lee Harvey Oswald, who in turn is assassinated while in protective custody by one Jack Ruby (Jacob Rubinstein)…a Jewish Zionist thug who gladly puts a bullet in the only man who may turn out to be the best witness for the JFK murder.

TheTorture of Julius Streicher in his own Words, under Oath at Nuremberg -April 1946
TALMUDIC VENGEANCE AS DESCRIBED BY REED…..HUNG BY HOOKS ETC..CRUSIFIXES AND ALTERS WERE THE NORM- BAGS OVER THEIR HEADS AKIN TO IRAQIS’ BEING TORTURED- WE KNOW WHERE THE IDEA CAME FROM.

WORLD AT WAR…..PROPAGANDA

chromelung4 on 9 Aug 2011

Anyone who has studied the Nuremberg Trials outside of the confines of what we’re spoon fed as the official history, will see the War Crime Trials were an utter travesty and should have triggered a mass awakening at the time of how the media and government were in collusion. But it was 1945 and we look at those times as a time of innocence and therefore the people were more trusting, hence the ignorance. Now it’s 65 yrs later & we’re still waiting for the masses to figure it out. It’s not going to happen unless the government wants it to happen to cause riots and give him an excuse to turn America into a communist Orwellian hellhole. In any case, back to Julius Striecher, who was NOT a nazi and made a point of it often before and after the war. He was a doctor.

The way the trial was run was shockingly corrupt and crooked, with 80% of the Russian and “allied” prosecutors were Jewish Americans, and many of them had family and friends in Europe. The panel couldn’t be more biased if you tried! It was obvious from the start they had plans to blame Germany for many things that they themselves had done. Let’s not forget it wasn’t until 44 yrs later that it was found that Russia had run the real death camps in their gulag system which they denied repeatedly for decades. Estimates range from 60 million to 135 million massacred over thought crimes or accusations of thought crimes.
Most of the early purges were over ridiculous charges such as “anti-semitism”. 1000’s received a bullet to the head for even being accused of “anti-semitism”. (Sound familar? ADL? SPLC?) The Katyn Forest Massacre is but 1 of 100’s of examples)
Julius Streicher was sentenced to death. But like most prisoners of war appearing at Nuremberg who were tortured brutally all day and night before, during, and after their court appearances to the point none had even any testicles left. was slowly stranguled. ( 15 minute strangulation !) Despite the military’s obviously having the ability to carry out a death sentence in a timely and professional manner, they reveled in torture, even in the death. It was 1 of many truly psychotic episodes of allied & russian war cimes that were covered up by mainstream media. After discovering these facts, you’ll never look at those old WW2 “war heroe’s” the same again.
Streicher and another 10 German politicians and Generals were sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal made by the victorious powers and heavily lobbied for panel positions by powerful jewish organizations, and hanged( strangled) Stiecher on Sep 16, 1946 by JEWISH Sgt.John C. Woods, the U.S. Army’s official executioner.

To read some of the outrageous claims made at Nuremberg, please check out the excellent work of Carlos Porter from the 1990’s. Of course like all serious researchers with credentials, he was harrassed, threatened, had his family threatened, and much more, simply for knowing how to speak and read Russian and flying to Moscow after the fall of communism to transcribe the court files of Nuremberg. For this, his life was made hell and he had to leave the country. Some things never change.
Carlos Porter’s website w/ must read information!http://www.cwporter.com

In Dronten no. 4 (“The Dodo” at the address Patriot.dk) I have dealt with the once world famous foreign correspondent and author, Douglas Reed, who went from being widely known and respected before, during and after the II.nd World War to becoming an expelled and completely forgotten person.

Why was he “forgotten”?

It was simply because he wrote about “The Jewish Question!”

International Jewry responded to his frank description of the problem with total censorship, so that his new books could no longer be printed and the old ones would disappear gradually from the bookstores and even from the library shelves.

After a short period of slandering he was no longer mentioned at all in the world’s media.

As the author Ivor Benson (who has himself written a book on this subject: The Zionist Factor) says in the foreword to Douglas Reeds masterpiece The Controversy of Zion, which had to wait 22 years before it could be published, “the adversity, which Reed encountered, would have made a lesser personality give up. But not he“.

After his expulsion from the zionist-controlled media-world, he found himself free to start this most outstanding work, which all the years as a foreign correspondent in Europe and his earlier books had only been a preparation and an education for. His vision expanded from year to year and from book to book. It was an education, which was not available in any university.”

He spent more than three years away from his family in the early fifties in New York Central Library or in front of his typewriter in modest surroundings in New York and in Montreal. He rewrote the whole book with an epilogue i 1956, where the uprising in Hungary and the Suez-war were scrutinized as further examples of the talmudic co-operation between communism and zionism. Then, as mentioned, the book had to wait 22 years for a possibility of getting published!

It is instructive to observe how Douglas Reed gradually penetrates deeper and deeper into the Jewish problem from that time, when he had hardly even thought about it in 1935 (as he writes in The controversy of Zion) until he delivers his harsh judgement in the shape of The controversy of Zion.

The mood of gloom and doom is not his own, but due to the gloomy character of the subject, as he says in the epilogue to the book. In the cause of his work he has felt the evil as an almost physical presence in the plans, he reveals. As “forces from some dinosaur-lair projected into the twentieth century.” But, he says, it is not for him to judge, what is evil. God must have had an intention, in his wisdom, to allow this evil to exist, possibly for the progress of the soul. But in that case he, himself, feels like being also a part of God’s creation, who has the duty to reveal this evil, so that human beings can be set free from it.

Ivor Benson follows this line of thought in the epilogue to his own book on the subject (1986) The Zionist Factor, as follows: “There is no Jewish problem per se, only a gigantic 20th century problem, in which the fate and responsibility of Jews and Christians are inseperably intertwined”. The irresponsible world power, built on money and dominated by Jews, is, in its outstretched cob-web something, that we have all allowed to grow big and strong through our irresponsibility.

But if this power has now grown so strong, that it cannot be stopped, but must be allowed to continue its predestined course, until, finally, it devours itself like a worldwide wolf, what use is it then to us to get to know and fully understand what goes on in the world?”

Ivor Benson answers this as follows: “a short answer is given in a christian concept with even older sources: “Thou shalt know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

In 1938 Reed wrote his first major – and world famous – book, Insanity Fair, which was published in at least 35 editions in English and published in danish, also in 1938, in 5 editions. In Danish the title was “Galskabens Kavalkade” (can still be ordered from the library). It is scarcely 400 pages and is a mixture of an autobiography and a political description of Europe up to- and during the Second World War.

His predictions of major political events were for many people surprisingly accurate at a time, when the “responsible politicians” of the West were acting in direct opposition to his advice and interpretations, and the unifying principle of the book is one long warning against the threat from Hitler-Germany.

But simultaneously he had, among other things, a few critical remarks about the jews, which he had observed and come to know during his many travels as a reporter in Europe. In his second book he deals with the subject of the jews a great deal more thoroughly. All of two chapters out of 37 are dedicated to his “becoming clear as crystal“ on the subject, as he says. This book from 1939 had the english title “Disgrace Abounding” and in danish (also 1939) “Grænseløs Skændsel”. (It can still be procured from deposit libraries). The book – almost 500 pages – was also a description of the prewar conditions, as he knew them in his capacity of being one of the leading foreign correspondents in Southeastern Europe, and through his close personal acquaintanceship with many of the leading politicians of the time. It was yet another long warning against Hitler-Germany and a reproach of the erroneous Western politics, in which he could not find the logic.

As far as the Jews are concerned, he is definitely far more crystally clear in this book than in the previous one, where there were actually just a few good-natured teasing remarks about them.

I have, in Dronten no. 6, (danish) reproduced both of these two chapters and a couple of other interesting descriptions of the Jews in Europe, seen through his eyes, under the menu (in Dronten): “Grænseløs Skændsel” (“Disgrace Abounding”).

By this time he no longer holds any doubt, that there is most certainly a serious Jewish problem. From the on he would get to study the problem thoroughly through the following ten years.

His well-intentioned advice, that the Jewish problem could only be solved by the Jews getting their own nation (but not by killing arabs), was abandoned by him again, when his studies of talmudic zionism, and the eventual establishment of Israel, demonstrated to him, that the Jewish question implied much more than just that, and was now so much bigger.

Also, he discovered, it had in reality been laid down in an ancient plan for world-conquest.

He wrote a few more books which he managed to get published somehow (see the list in Dronten no. 4, under the menu “Bibliography”- and now (in english) the homepage Douglas Reed Books, red.).

After the books Somewhere South of Suez (1949) and Far and Wide (1951), which are not translated into danish, Reed was practically banned by the most important publishers and bookstorechains because of his ever more clear description of the Jewish problem. He does not end up by being optimistic concerning the solution to the problem, as he actually thinks that only God can solve it – in time. Nevertheless, it is also his opinion, that the suffering of mankind, including the Jews, which will result in the meantime, until this solution will appear, may be reduced and shortened by people learning the truth about “The Contorversy of Zion”. In this issue of Dronten (no. 6), I have translated, into danish, two more chapters of this – in my opinion – vital work. With the knowledge, which the book gives the reader, he understands the real background of the invasion of foreigners in The West, the globalisation and the break-down of nations, culture and morals. Here, finally, I will relay Douglas Reeds own description of the problems of the banning of Disgrace Abounding – “Aftertale” in the book), and in this way introduce this, his encyclopaedic masterpiece, The Controversy of Zion”:

………”Chance, and possibly my own sense of timing, enabled me to write additional chapters for Insanity Fair immediately after publication, and this time the same thing has happened again. But on this occasion chance has enabled me, in the additional chapter, to give you the best possible example of the way organized world-Jewry works and of the immense power it wields in goading world-opinion against Germany. I imagine anybody who has read these two books will realize that I hold Germany to be a menace to England, but that I do not identify the cause of England with that of the foreign Jews.

After I wrote Insanity Fair I was swamped by offers from American publishers for my next book. I signed a contract with one firm. When I began Disgrace Abounding I did not know that it would be an anti-Semitic book. The anti-Semitic part is the result of my observation of the Jews in the last year and of my conviction that the mass influx of Jews to England is a political mistake and a national misfortune.

The American publisher, after reading Disgrace Abounding, declined to publish on the ground that the Semitic part was ‘slanderous and libellous’. Read the Jewish part for yourself and see if this is true. I, for my part, declined to have the book published anywhere without the Jewish chapters. The real meaning of that decision is that, in America, you may ‘slander and libel’ Germany as much as you like, and be paid for it, but you must not discuss the Jewish problem, you must not assert that there is a Jewish problem. Other American publishers declined the book on the grounds that they could not publish the Jewish chapters. One of them, not a Jew, said that an American publisher would court misfortune by publishing it, because 90 per cent of the American newspapers are Jewish, and the Jewish influence extends in similar proportion throughout the whole ring of trades connected with publishing.

I see very little difference between the Jewish and the Hitlerist method, in this matter of free speech and free discussion. The Jews are for free attacks on Germany, nothing else. The same thing happened in some of the Scandinavian countries, where Insanity Fair had great success and where publishers were clamouring for the next book – until they saw the Jewish chapters. They asked to be allowed to publish the book without them. I refused. The same thing happened in France even with Insanity Fair, where a publisher contracted for the book who apparently could not read English and only realized when he saw the French translation that there was a few passages in it which he did not consider sufficiently favourable to the Jews. He demanded their excision, I refused, and he sold the contract to another firm.

So only in England, as yet, and possibly in France — although I do not yet know whether this book will appear in France — may a non-Jew openly discuss the for and against of the Jewish question.

The importance of this, for you, is that you should realize that what is presented to you as ‘American approval’ or ‘American disapproval’ of this or that action of British policy is not American but Jewish opinion, and that this puts quite another face on the matter. If you are to fight Germany again, you must do it for England’s sake. You must not allow yourselves to be egged on by Jews masquerading to-day as ‘German public opinion’, to-morrow as ‘Czechoslovak public opinion’, the day after as ‘English public opinion’, and the next day as ‘American public opinion’. If England suffers disaster in coming years, the Jews who have come to England in these latter years will not suffer that misfortune in like measure; they will not feel it as Englishmen will feel it, they will prosper in chaos, and when they feel that a lean time is coming for them they will make up their minds to sail away.

As I came up the Thames I wondered what my own future would be. I had promised myself to decide within a very few days whether I would continue to write about the daily European scene or whether I would cut loose [ed: altogether?] together, go to Polynesia, Patagonia or Peking, write about other things than Hitler’s eternal invasions.

I wondered whether, the next time I left England, I should go in one of those steamers white and gold to some far distant foreign clime. The decision lay before me. I had a few days’ time. While I was locked up in the Legation at Prague, Disgrace Abounding was published – the most curious things happen to my books. After my departure from Prague I read the first reviews of it. Somebody spoke compassionately of my inferiority complex. I never knew, until I wrote Insanity Fair, what an inferiority complex was, or that I had one. To understand these things you have to sit at the feet of some venerable Jewish professor in Vienna, who soothes you by telling you that your faults are not your own but the products of your ancestors’ hereditary alcoholism, or something of that sort, and this wise counsel gives you new strength. The gins of the fathers. – Kraft durch Freud.

I have no inferiority complex, but only the most normal longings for England to be better. I have a heavy foreboding for England, whose rulers have made every mistake they could. I want to see England safe at home and abroad. Safe at home for the British Derelict Aryans, not for the Foreign Non-Aryans. Safe abroad from Germany.

Neither of these things is being done. The danger of a German ultimatum has been drawing daily nearer. What shall it profit Britain if she lose her whole Empire and gain only the Jews? Now, at the last moment, a faint hope offers that a stand will be made – over Poland. Then why not for Czecho-Slovakia? Why have we handed over the Czech Army, the Czech Air Force, the Skoda Works, the Czech gold, to Germany? If we were from the beginning prepared to make this stand, we should have made it years ago. Then you would have had none of this trouble. You could have satisfied Germany’s just grievances – but you could have compelled her to keep the peace…….”

His well-intentioned advice, that the Jewish problem could only be solved by the Jews getting their own nation (but not by killing arabs), was abandoned by him again, when his studies of talmudic zionism, and the eventual establishment of Israel, demonstrated to him, that the Jewish question implied much more than just that, and was now so much bigger.

Also, he discovered, it had in reality been laid down in an ancient plan for world-conquest.

NWO…… TALMUDIC NWO……SCARY- READ THE TALMUD!

POLITICIANS TURN MY STOMACH!

The statement of existing war made to Congress said the purpose of the war (which Mr. Wilson, a few weeks before, had declared in his draft to be “obscure”) was “to set up a new international order”. Thus a new purpose was openly, though cryptically revealed. To the public masses the words meant anything or nothing. To the initiates they carried a commitment to support the plan, of which Zionism and Communism both were instruments, for establishing a “world federation” founded on force and the obliteration of nationhood, with the exception of one “nation” to be recreated.

From this moment the power-groups in America and England worked in perfect synchronization, so that the two stories become one story, or one “web”. The apparently powerful men in Washington and London co-ordinated their actions at the prompting of the inter-communicating Zionists on both sides of the ocean. Foreknowledge of what was to happen had earlier been displayed by Dr. Weizmann in London, who in March 1915 wrote to his ally, Mr. Scott of the Manchester Guardian, that he “understood” the British Government to be willing to support Zionist aspirations at the peace conference to come (the event also foretold by Max Nordau in 1903). This was exactly what Mr. Asquith would not consider, so that Dr. Weizmann, in March 1915, was already describing Mr. Asquith’s supplanters of December 1916 as “the British Government”.

This “British Government”, said Dr. Weizmann, would leave “the organization of the Jewish commonwealth” in Palestine “entirely to the care of the Jews”. However, the Zionists could not possibly, even in a Palestine conquered

* Lord Sydenham, when he wrote of the “deadly accuracy” of the forecast in the “Protocols” of about 1900, might have had particularly in mind the passage, “. . . We shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal in case of need”. The situation here described became established practice during the present century. In 1950 President Truman sent American troops into Korea. “to check Communist aggression”, without consulting Congress. Later this was declared to be a “United Nations” war and they were joined by troops of seventeen other countries under an American commander, General MacArthur. This was the first experiment in a “world government”-type war and its course produced Senator Taft’s question of 1952. “Do we really mean our anti-Communist policy?” General MacArthur was dismissed after protesting an order forbidding him to pursue Communist aircraft into their Chinese sanctuary and in 1953, under President Eisenhower, the war was broken off, leaving half of Korea in “the aggressor’s” hands. General MacArthur and other American commanders later charged that the order forbidding pursuit was made known to the enemy by “a spy ring responsible for the purloining of my top secret reports to Washington” (Life, Feb. 7, 1956), and the Chinese Communist commander confirmed this (New York Daily News, Feb. 13, 1956). In June 1951 two British Foreign Office officials, Burgess and Maclean, disappeared and in September 1955 the British Government, after refusing information for four years, confirmed the general belief that they were in Moscow and “had spied for the Soviet Union over a long period”. General MacArthur then charged that these two men had revealed the non-pursuit order to the Communist “aggressor” (Life, above-quoted).

On April 4, 1956 President Eisenhower was asked by a reporter at his regular news conference whether he would order a United States marine battalion, then recently sent to the Mediterranean, into war “without asking Congress first” (by that time war in the Middle East was an obvious possibility). He answered angrily. “I have announced time and time again I will never be guilty of any kind of action that can be interpreted as war until the Congress, which has the constitutional authority”. On January 3, 1957, the first major act of his second term, he sent a draft resolution to Congress designed to invest him with unlimited, standing authority to act militarily in the Middle East “to deter Communist armed aggression”.

265

for them, have set up “a commonwealth” against the native inhabitants. They could only do that behind the protection of a great power and its armies. Therefore Dr. Weizmann (foretelling in 1915 exactly what was to happen in 1919 and the following two decades) considered that a British “protectorate” should be set up in Palestine (to protect the Zionist intruders). This would mean, he said, that “the Jews take over the country; the whole burden of organization falls on them, but for the next ten or fifteen years they work under a temporary British protectorate” .

Dr. Weizmann adds that this was “an anticipation of the mandate system”, so that today’s student also learns where the notion of “mandates” was born. The idea of ruling conquered territories under a “mandate” bestowed by a self-proclaimed “league of nations” was devised solely with an eye to Palestine. (Events have proved this. All the other “mandates” distributed after the 1914-1918 war, to give the appearance of a procedure generally applicable, have faded away, either by relinquishment of the territory to its inhabitants or by its conversion, in fact, into a possession of the conqueror. The concept of the “mandate” was maintained for just as long as was needed for the Zionists to amass enough arms to take possession of Palestine for themselves).

Thus, after the elevation of Mr. Lloyd George and the second election of Mr. Wilson, the shape of the future, far beyond the war’s end, was fully known to Dr. Weizmann at the web’s centre, who went into action. In a memorandum to the British Government he demanded that “The Jewish population of Palestine. . . shall be officially recognized by the Suzerain government as the Jewish Nation”. The “first full-dress conference leading to the Balfour Declaration” was then held. This committee, met to draft a British governmental document, met in a private Jewish house and consisted of nine Zionist leaders and one representative of the government concerned, Sir Mark Sykes (who attended “in his private capacity”). As a result Mr. Balfour at once arranged to go to America to discuss the matter.

Dr. Weizmann and his associates had to steer a very narrow course between two difficulties at that moment, and might have failed, had not “the web” enabled them to dictate what Mr. Balfour would be told by the men he crossed the ocean to see. The British Government, for all its zeal, took alarm at the prospect of acting as sole protector of the Zionists and wanted America to share the armed occupation of Palestine. The Zionists knew that this would violently upset American opinion, (had it come about America, from bitter experience shared, would have been much harder to win for the deed of 1948) and did not want the question of American co-occupation raised. Dr. Weizmann’s misgivings were increased when, in “a long talk” he found Mr. Balfour, before his departure, eager for “an Anglo-American protectorate”.

To the public masses the words meant anything or nothing. To the initiates they carried a commitment to support the plan, of which Zionism and Communism both were instruments, for establishing a “world federation” founded on force and the obliteration of nationhood, with the exception of one “nation” to be recreated.

WHICH COUNTRY [ NATION] WILL THAT BE THEN…..LET ME GUESS………………..ISRAEL!
TO BE CREATED……IT WAS AFTER BEING STOLEN FROM THE PALESTINIANS …..CENTRE OF THE TAMUDIC NWO!